110-home housing development at Farm View, Langley Vale Road, Epsom

What was proposed

The application sought outline permission for up to 110 homes, including 55 affordable homes, with a new access, open space and play areas.

“The application seeks outline planning permission for the demolition of Farm View and the erection of a residential development of up to 110 dwellings, including the provision of a new vehicular access of Langley Vale Road, 50% affordable homes, new public open space, play spaces and associated landscaping. All matters are reserved except access.”

“The proposed development would deliver a total of 1.637 ha of publicly accessible communal open space with incorporated play areas for…”

Officer report

The site

The site included Farm View and 5.21 hectares of sloping agricultural land beside Langley Vale, The Warren ancient woodland and existing housing.

“The site comprises the curtilage of Farm View and 5.21 hectares of sloping agricultural land that forms part of Langley Bottom Farm.”

“The north west corner of the site adjoins Langley Vale Road and the south east corner abuts an areas of Ancient Woodland known as ‘The Warren’. To the south west of the of the site, beyond The Gallops, but not immediately adjoining, lies a residential development currently under construction for 20 new residential units that was allowed at appeal (Ref: APP/P3610/21/3280881).”

Officer report

Planning history

A screening opinion found the development was not EIA development, while nearby housing proposals had been refused, dismissed on appeal or allowed on appeal.

“App No. Description Status 25/00733/SCR Screening Opinion pursuant to Regulation 6 (1) of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017, as amended (the EIA Regulations), in relation to the proposed redevelopment at Langley Bottom Farm (the Application Site) Not EIA Development 10.07.2025”

“App No. Description Status 24/00568/FUL Two storey 4 bedroom detached dwelling with car port and associated landscaping following demolition of existing derelict farm house Appeal Dismissed 18.07.2025 Refused 25.07.2024 20/00475/FUL Demolition of the existing buildings on the site and construction of twenty residential dwellings, of which eight (40%) would be affordable together with associated access, landscaping and parking.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval subject to conditions and a legal agreement, saying the benefits would not be significantly and demonstrably outweighed by adverse effects.

“The presumption is therefore to grant permission for sustainable development unless any adverse effects of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, or where specific policies in the Framework indicate that development should be restricted.”

“Within this overall balance, having regard to the above factors, national Green Belt policies do not provide a clear reason for refusing the proposed development. The adverse impacts of granting permission in this particular instance do not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, or where specific policies in the Framework indicate that development should be restricted.”

Officer report

Consultation and objections

Consultees mostly raised no objection subject to conditions, while 374 objections and a petition with 2,097 signatures opposed the scheme.

“Consultee Comments External Consultees Environment Agency No comments to make Natural England No objection Thames Water No objection subject to conditions County Highway Authority Objection on the grounds that the site is an unsustainable location Lead Local Flood Authority No objection subject to conditions County Archaeologist No objection subject to conditions Surrey Crime Commissioner No objection subject to financial contribution Fire Safety Officer No objection subject…”

“Not accounting for duplicate and anonymous correspondence, 374 letters of objection and an online petition with 2,097 signatures objecting to the scheme have been received.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A ward councillor, another ward councillor and two objectors spoke against the application, while the applicant’s agent spoke in support.

What members decided

Members rejected the officer recommendation and proposed refusal because they considered the location unsustainable, the Green Belt harm unacceptable and the effects on horses and landscape harmful.

“Epsom and Ewell Borough Council The Committee voted (1 for, 6 against, and the Chair not voting) against the motion, and the motion was lost. Following further consideration, Councillor Clive Woodbridge proposed a motion that the application be refused for the following reasons: 1) Unsustainable Development The site is located in an unsustainable location with a lack of access to public transport and walking and cycling options, resulting in excessive reliance on private car…”

“3) Impact upon the Horse Training and Racing Industry The proposal will lead to an increased conflict with existing movements of horses on Langley Vale Road, posing unacceptable conflict and impediment to vehicular traffic and risk to horses and riders, contrary to section 9 of the NPPF, policy CS16 of the core strategy, and policy DM10 of the development management policies document.”

Minutes

Final decision

The committee refused the application for unsustainable development, inappropriate Green Belt development, harm to the horse training and racing industry, and landscape character harm.

“Epsom and Ewell Borough Council core strategy, and DM10 of the development management policies document. (2) Inappropriate Development in the Green Belt. The proposal is inappropriate development in the Green Belt by definition and will result in unacceptable harm to the openness and setting to the Green Belt without sufficient very special circumstances, contrary to section 13 of the NPPF, policy CS1 and 2 of the core strategy, and policy DM3 of the development management…”

Minutes